Comparing Planning Domain Models Using Answer Set Programming
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Chrpa et al. and Sievers et al. use a lifted graph representation of the planning domain, with Chrpa et al. specifically using graph isomorphism to check equivalence.
“Chrpa et al. (2023) and Sievers et al. (2021) use a lifted graph representation of the planning domain, with the former specifically using graph isomorphism to check equivalence.”
From Planetarium: A Rigorous Benchmark for Translating Text to Structured Planning Languages (2025) · cites this paper as Chrpa et al. (2023)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases
Gelfond, M., & Lifschitz, V. (1991) · New Generation Computing · doi:10.1007/bf03037169 · Cited by 2,267 · see citing works
Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving
Baral, C. R. (2003) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511543357 · Cited by 1,443 · see citing works
A distance measure between attributed relational graphs for pattern recognition
Sanfeliu, A., & Fu, K. (1983) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/tsmc.1983.6313167 · Cited by 1,142 · see citing works
Answer set programming at a glance
Brewka, G., Eiter, T., & Truszczyński, M. (2011) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/2043174.2043195 · Cited by 946 · see citing works
Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm
Niemelä, I. (1999) · Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1023/a:1018930122475 · Cited by 837 · see citing works
Zeng, Z., Tung, A. K. H., Wang, J., Feng, J., & Zhou, L. (2009) · Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment · doi:10.14778/1687627.1687631 · Cited by 397 · see citing works
Plan Explanations as Model Reconciliation: Moving Beyond Explanation as Soliloquy
Chakraborti, T., Sreedharan, S., Zhang, Y., & Kambhampati, S. (2017) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2017/23 · Cited by 359 · see citing works
ASP-Core-2 Input Language Format
Calimeri, F., Faber, W., GEBSER, M., IANNI, G., KAMINSKI, R., KRENNWALLNER, T., LEONE, N., MARATEA, M., Ricca, F., & Schaub, T. H. (2019) · Theory and Practice of Logic Programming · doi:10.1017/s1471068419000450 · Cited by 255 · see citing works
Self-citationModelling Mixed Discrete-Continuous Domains for Planning
Fox, M., & Long, D. (2006) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.2044 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
MAPGEN: mixed-initiative planning and scheduling for the Mars Exploration Rover mission
Ai-Chang, M., Yglesias, J. A., Chafin, B. G., Dias, W. C., Maldague, P. F., Bresina, J. L., Charest, L., Chase, A., Hsu, J., Jónsson, A., et al. (2004) · IEEE Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1109/mis.2004.1265878 · Cited by 196 · see citing works
Inexact graph matching by means of estimation of distribution algorithms
Bengoetxea, E., Larrañaga, P., Isabelle Bloch, A., Aymeric Perchant, B., & Boeres, C. (2002) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/s0031-3203(01)00232-1 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Acquiring planning domain models using LOCM
Cresswell, S. N., McCluskey, T. L., & West, M. M. (2013) · The Knowledge Engineering Review · doi:10.1017/s0269888912000422 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Clingo goes linear constraints over reals and integers
Janhunen, T., Kaminski, R., Ostrowski, M., Schellhorn, S., Wanko, P., & Schaub, T. H. (2017) · Theory and Practice of Logic Programming · doi:10.1017/s1471068417000242 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Integrated Hybrid Planning and Programmed Control for Real Time UAV Maneuvering
Ramírez, M., Papasimeon, M., Lipovetzky, N., Benke, L., Miller, T., Pearce, A. R., Scala, E., & Zamani, M. R. (2018) · Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agents Systems · doi:10.65109/orlj5523 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Engineering and compiling planning domain models to promote validity and efficiency
McCluskey, T. L., & Porteous, J. (1997) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(97)00034-9 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Engineering Knowledge for Automated Planning
McCluskey, T. L., Vaquero, T., & Vallati, M. (2017) · International Conference on Knowledge Capture · doi:10.1145/3148011.3148012 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Self-citationIn-Station Train Dispatching: A PDDL+ Planning Approach
Cardellini, M., Marco Maratea, A., Vallati, M., Boleto, G., & Oneto, L. (2021) · Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling · doi:10.1609/icaps.v31i1.15991 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Self-citationExplainable Planning Using Answer Set Programming
Nguyễn, V. Đ., Vasileiou, S. L., Son, T. C., & Yeoh, W. (2020) · Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning · doi:10.24963/kr.2020/66 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Model Reconciliation in Logic Programs
Son, T. C., Nguyễn, V. Đ., Vasileiou, S. L., & Yeoh, W. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-75775-5_26 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
On the Robustness of Domain-Independent Planning Engines
Vallati, M., & Chrpa, L. (2019) · International Conference on Knowledge Capture · doi:10.1145/3360901.3364416 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citationWorkshop on Knowledge Engineering for Planning and Scheduling (KEPS)
Barták, R., & McCluskey, T. L. (2008) · University of Huddersfield Repository (University of Huddersfield) · Cited by 4 · see citing works
A Quality Framework for Automated Planning Knowledge Models
Vallati, M., & McCluskey, T. L. (2021) · International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART) · doi:10.5220/0010216806350644 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citationExplainable Problem in clingo-dl Programs
Nguyễn, V. Đ., Son, T. C., & Yeoh, W. (2021) · Proceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search · doi:10.1609/socs.v12i1.18593 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Bengoetxea, E.: Inexact Graph Matching Using Estimation of Distribution Algorithms. Ph.D. thesis, Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Télécommunications, Paris, France (Dec 2002)
- Chrpa, L., McCluskey, T.L., Vallati, M., Vaquero, T.: The fifth international competition on knowledge engineering for planning and scheduling: Summary and trends. AI Magazine 38(1), 104-106 (2017)
- Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., Wanko, P.: Theory solving made easy with clingo 5. In: ICLP (Technical Communications). OASICS, vol. 52, pp. 2:1-2:15 (2016)
- Shah, M.M.S., Chrpa, L., Kitchin, D.E., McCluskey, T.L., Vallati, M.: Exploring knowledge engineering strategies in designing and modelling a road traffic accident management do- main. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. pp. 2373-2379 (2013)
- Shoeeb, S., McCluskey, T.: On comparing planning domain models. In: PlanSIG Workshop (2011)
- Shrinah, A., Long, D., Eder, K.: D-val: An automatic functional equivalence validation tool for planning domain models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.14602 (2021) · arXiv
- Sreedharan, S., Chakraborti, T., Kambhampati, S.: Foundations of explanations as model reconciliation. Artificial Intelligence 301, 103558 (2021)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on Penetration Path Planning in Automated Penetration Testing
Chen, Z., Kang, F., Xiong, X., & Shu, H. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app14188355 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Planetarium: A Rigorous Benchmark for Translating Text to Structured Planning Languages
Zuo, M., Velez, F. P., Li, X., Littman, M., & Bach, S. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.560 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“Chrpa et al. (2023) and Sievers et al. (2021) use a lifted graph representation of the planning domain, with the former specifically using graph isomorphism to check equivalence.”
Automatic Knowledge Gap Detection and Plan Validation Using Counterfactual Justifications
Tudor, A. R., Arias, J., & Gupta, G. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-92-0184-6_13
- Authors
- Chrpa, L., Dodaro, C., Maratea, M., Mochi, M., & Vallati, M.
- Affiliations
- Czech Technical University in Prague (CZ)
- University of Calabria (IT)
- University of Genoa (IT)
- University of Huddersfield (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Chrpa, Lukáš
- Venue
- Lecture Notes in Computer Science
- Publisher
- Springer Nature Switzerland
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 227-242
- ISSN
- 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
- 1611-3349
- OpenAlex
- W4386987127
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.36
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- pure.hud.ac.uk
- Licence
- Locations
- Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
- Huddersfield Research Portal (University of Huddersfield) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Archive of Doctoral Theses and Digital Collections (University of Calabria) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- UK Research and Innovation (MR/T041196/1)
- Grantová Agentura České Republiky (GA23-05575S)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
- Keywords
- domain model, automated planning, domain-independent planning, knowledge engineering, model similarity, strong equivalence, graph edit distance, answer set programming, directed graphs, model comparison
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
